The Riding Gravel Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
thumper88

Member
Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #1 

I haven't seen it fully explained anywhere, but Panaracer now lists a 38mm tire that weighs 440 grams and also sells a "35" that is widely known to measure out at 38mm, listed at 400 grams.

Does anyone know what the difference is, since they likely BOTH measure 38, now that Panaracer has adopted a policy of listing size accurately?
My 35s do indeed measure exactly 38mm and weigh almost precisely 400gm.

I read that in the Land Run, the Panaracer-sponsored team was running the 35mm, though the winner wasn't whatever reason but said he wished he HAD been.

Im guessing the 38 has added more puncture protection, while the 35 is faster-rolling and has a bit less protection, but I would have thought it identical in that regard to the "40" since they were of the same generation and had the same intent.

Can anyone who actually knows say what the differences are?

Thanks much!
0
glen_one_n

Starter
Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #2 
Primarily it’s a resizing to reflect true width on wider rims and also include official TLC tubeless ready branding. The additional weight is reported to be due to sidewall puncture resistance reinforcement.
0
thumper88

Member
Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #3 
Yeah, I noticed my 35's didn't say TLC. But... they seated more easily than any tubeless tire Ive ever had.

That still leaves kind of the "why" question on the additional sidewall reinforcement.
Were the 35's built differently from the 40's (which it sounds like are built the same as 43)?
And so the extra 40 gram of reinforcement brought the 38s up the same level of robustness?

Or were 35's the same as the 40s, and the 38s are now even sturdier?

This isn't a finicky academic question. If the 35's are as protected as the 40s Im probably going to run them at DK. If not, the weight difference between the 38s and 43s not being all that significant, I might opt for the greater volume of the 43s.
The 35's feel pretty fast. The 43's obviously less so... but clearly are fast enough for DK.

0
alembical

Member
Registered:
Posts: 51
Reply with quote  #4 
Is there a difference in the number of rows of knobs on the tread?  I am running the newer 38s, which measure accurately at 38 (Tubeless on Hed Belgium +) and are marked TLC.  These have 3 rows of knobs across the tread.  As I understand things, this is basically the same as the old labeled 35s, but for some sidewall protection.  The old 38s are now called 40 and have 5 rows of knobs. 

... but I could be wrong.
0
thumper88

Member
Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alembical
Is there a difference in the number of rows of knobs on the tread?  I am running the newer 38s, which measure accurately at 38 (Tubeless on Hed Belgium +) and are marked TLC.  These have 3 rows of knobs across the tread.  As I understand things, this is basically the same as the old labeled 35s, but for some sidewall protection.  The old 38s are now called 40 and have 5 rows of knobs. 

... but I could be wrong.


The 35s have three rows. I don't think there's much question that they and the 38's measure the same, or that the 38's have more protection built in.

My question is which one is set up at the same level of sidewall protection as the 40/43?
On one hand it seems like the 35's would be the same since they originated in the same generation and clearly are a large gravel tire as opposed to lighter duty cross item.

And meanwhile its equally clear that nothing changed then the "40" became the "43", except the name.

If the "35" is less robust than the 40/43 for sidewall protection, I'll use it for less rugged races and go with the "38."
But if the 35 is as well-protected as the 40/43, I feel certain 1) that's good enough for any race and B) it's going to be faster.



0
clarksonxc

Avatar / Picture

Member
Registered:
Posts: 87
Reply with quote  #6 
Man we could really use GTed on here to get some samples find out what really happened!
0
bwepps

Member
Registered:
Posts: 25
Reply with quote  #7 
I have a set of the "new" 38's that are now marked TLC or tubeless and a pair of the old 700x40's (43).  The 38's do have three rows of treads while yes the 40's have five.  It also looks to me that the 38's have a rounder profile than the 40's.  I have them both mounted to 21mm internal width rims.  The 40's I have from last year though are currently mounted tubeless while the 38's are not.  Some of that profile difference can certainly be attributed to the tube.  

The 700x40's are mounted to a Specialized Sequoia and I really like the size and compliance of the tire.  Got me through the DK200 and other long gravel events with traction, zero flats, and plenty of cush.  In comparison the 700x38's (on a 2018 Spec Diverge) look "skinny."  I have yet to test them out on a long, harsh gravel ride.
0
Dug

Starter
Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #8 
The 40 mm version, when mounted on my 20.3 internal width rims, measured out to 43 mm.  The 38 mm tire when mounted on the same rim are 40 mm on the nose.

Just FYI. 
0
thumper88

Member
Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #9 
That is an interesting measurement on the 38. Have the "35" mounted on Reynolds ATR 700's now. They're 23mm internal width and the tire measures exactly 38mm, at least on day two. I guess it could grow a tad over time, will with it.
But Im starting the think maybe the 35 and 38 are different sizes, not just light vs reinforced.
0
Zurichman

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 666
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thumper88
That is an interesting measurement on the 38. Have the "35" mounted on Reynolds ATR 700's now. They're 23mm internal width and the tire measures exactly 38mm, at least on day two. I guess it could grow a tad over time, will with it.
But Im starting the think maybe the 35 and 38 are different sizes, not just light vs reinforced.


I haven't tried the tire but have followed lots of comments on different tires. I think the different results you are seeing are because of different rim widths or the way tires fit different on each rim. just my 2 cents. an example of this is the way ted guitar said he had so much trouble fitting kenda Flintridge pro on his rims while the rest of us has had no trouble or at least the ones that have responded.

zman

__________________
If it was easy it wouldn't be a memory. You just hope you don't have all your memories in the same ride. been there dun that Zman
0
thumper88

Member
Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #11 
Theres a good chance youre right, Man... It just seems like if the 35 and 38 WERE the same that my 23mm-wide rims would've made them wider than his 21mm wide rims. But who knows. It would be good to get a definitive description of the different models from Panaracer... Also no doubt their sponsored race team folks like Bob Cummings probably have a super grasp on it.
I do like the 38s, they def feel faster and faster to spool up than the 43s, but all that's moot if they area slower or more vulnerable on DK-type gravel which I just cant replicate here.
I do think I will run the 38s at Bootlegger because the climbing is soooo savage that lighter could be a crucial boost.
0
sgtrobo

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 134
Reply with quote  #12 
I have the 700x38 SKs on a 2018 Diverge, Roval SLX24 wheelset.  They measure out a hair under 40c
0
thumper88

Member
Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #13 
So, I got an answer. It's three distinctly different-SIZED versions of the same tire, with confusing names past and present.


The "35" is unchanged, in name or size, and measures about 38mm on a typical wheel, whatever "typical" is.
The "38" is the only entirely new size here, and is like the others in construction but measures out at about 40mm.
The "43" is the old "40" and as it always has, measures out to about 43mm.

YMMV of course based on your wheels.
0
chas

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 290
Reply with quote  #14 
Makes sense.  The 35 always seemed like a light weight, and the 40/43 a fairly heavy weight.   Since they are popular, why not put an inbetween size in?  Especially since a lot of frames are not going to fit the 40/43.  

I'm not on GK's, but I run a 40 up front and a 38 in the rear because that is what fits best.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.